LabGrrl:The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm assuming they also banned second marriages too, right? I mean, marriage is between one man and one woman for eternity, right? Makes sense to not allow a man (or woman) to marry someone else when things didn't work out with the one and only person they chose to marry. Or, is this less about protecting the sanctity of marriage and more about hate?

I honestly think this is worded so poorly that someone could argue in court (maybe even successfully) that it outlaws second marriages and any marriage between people who already have kids.

It's amazingly dumb. Astonishingly dumb. That's why it's so different from referenda in California or Maine, it's not merely saying that they aren't going to recognize the marriages in other states, they are saying they refuse to recognize them unless they use their terms and their definition.

According to the spouse of the creator, it was made to "protect the Caucasian race".

Theaetetus:LabGrrl: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm assuming they also banned second marriages too, right? I mean, marriage is between one man and one woman for eternity, right? Makes sense to not allow a man (or woman) to marry someone else when things didn't work out with the one and only person they chose to marry. Or, is this less about protecting the sanctity of marriage and more about hate?

I honestly think this is worded so poorly that someone could argue in court (maybe even successfully) that it outlaws second marriages and any marriage between people who already have kids.

I don't see that at all:Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

There's nothing there that would outlaw second marriages or marriages with kids. Sorry, that reading just isn't supported.

The argument would go that a man with a legal relationship with another woman (i.e., child support, alimony, etc.) was not free to marry, or that a "domestic legal union" includes families (such as when the step-father is given legal powers over the kids) and thus includes more than one person.

I didn't say it would succeed, I just said I could see someone arguing it (out of sheer spite) maybe even successfully, since stupid wording is stupid.

Just like I could see the recognizing no other terms but marriage, while "outlawing" specific terms extended to not recognizing other words we use for marriage, like matrimony. (It would depend on if matrimony is stated as meaning marriage elsewhere in the law, AFAIK.)

Stupid law is stupid enough that if someone really wanted to just cause chaos with it, they probably could.

LabGrrl:The argument would go that a man with a legal relationship with another woman (i.e., child support, alimony, etc.) was not free to marry, or that a "domestic legal union" includes families (such as when the step-father is given legal powers over the kids) and thus includes more than one person.

I didn't say it would succeed, I just said I could see someone arguing it (out of sheer spite) maybe even successfully, since stupid wording is stupid.

No, because:(i) child support or alimony obligations are not legal unions, as required by the amendment; and(ii) if they were, or if they gave rise to a legal union, it would not be recognized under the amendment.

I think your argument is backwards - basically, you're saying that all domestic relationships would be recognized as marriage, thus preventing an unmarried person in one of said relationships from marrying "again". That's the opposite of what the amendment does, however, which is recognize none.

Stupid law is stupid enough that if someone really wanted to just cause chaos with it, they probably could.

Sure, but I think that will come up in terms of criminal defendants on charges of domestic abuse arguing that they're innocent, because not being in a recognized domestic relationship, the prosecution can't prove every element of the charges.

(in reference to my belief that North Carolina women who voted for this travesty of an amendment deserve marriages in which they're subjected to domestic violence)

Amendment One explicitly defines marriage as "between a man and a woman", thus preventing homosexuals from marrying, denying the recognition of out-of-state homosexual marriages, and potential impacting domestic partnerships and benefits down the road, among other issues.

If a straight woman voted for that, it couldn't have impacted her. - she's not homosexual. At least, not since college. - Homosexuals being able to marry wouldn't prevent her from being to marry. - Homosexuals being able to marry wouldn't even reduce the odds for her; gay men probably weren't beating a path to her door in the first place. - Her own marriage (current or future) wouldn't be cheapened, reduced, diluted, or weakened in the slightest; at least, no more so than it would be if any other two random people chose to marry.

Thus, a woman voting for this amendment was expressing her belief that other people shouldn't have the same privileges as she. She wishes others to be disenfranchised. Maybe it's a faith issue - perhaps this theoretical woman adheres to a religion that institutionally disenfranchises homosexuals. She has a belief, and she's representing that belief, even though that belief impacts others. Her belief is that others shouldn't be as happy as she is.

Accordingly, I have a belief, and my belief impacts others. I believe if a woman in North Carolina went out and intentionally cast a vote to disenfranchise another group of people, to no greater gain beyond having kept them from doing something she could already do, then she has earned a future in which she is forever tied to a devoted man who beats her within an inch of her life every night. Preferably with a belt, similar to a notable scene from The Godfather.

Her belief takes a chance at happiness away from a group of people. My belief sees her chance at happiness likewise taken away, though through more violent means. In both cases we're expressing beliefs that strictly affect other people and do not apply to ourselves - in that, we're the same.

Her belief is now enshrined in law. Mine's just a happy fantasy that appeals to my notion of fairness. fark that pro-Amendment One biatch and all the biatches like her. I hope they die childless.

/Clarification offered from a long-time Farker who has one account, a strong opinion, and a lot of anger.

"Bearing false witness" means, specifically, "perjury". There's no specific biblical prohibition against deception, and, in fact, it is specifically condoned on more than one occasion. This is not meant to invalidate your entire post, just to clarify what "bearing false witness" actually means.

OK. Since they are so keen on using Leviticus to talk about the abomination that is gay marriage, how about we try these:

Leviticus 6:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour...or hath deceived his neighbour...and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty,"

"Bearing false witness" means, specifically, "perjury". There's no specific biblical prohibition against deception, and, in fact, it is specifically condoned on more than one occasion. This is not meant to invalidate your entire post, just to clarify what "bearing false witness" actually means.

OK. Since they are so keen on using Leviticus to talk about the abomination that is gay marriage, how about we try these:

Leviticus 6:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour...or hath deceived his neighbour...and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty,"

"Bearing false witness" means, specifically, "perjury". There's no specific biblical prohibition against deception, and, in fact, it is specifically condoned on more than one occasion. This is not meant to invalidate your entire post, just to clarify what "bearing false witness" actually means.

OK. Since they are so keen on using Leviticus to talk about the abomination that is gay marriage, how about we try these:

Leviticus 6:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour...or hath deceived his neighbour...and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty,"

I'm guessing you don't know what "swearing falsely" means any more than "bearing false witness", but they're the same thing. See, it says if you deceive your neighbor and lie about it in court, you're in trouble. It doesn't actually say "if you ever lie to your neighbor at all". Now, in your second verse, who's being talked about in the "one to another" part? Because that's important to know in order to understand that, again, this is not a general prohibition on lying/deception. Now, do you know the story of Rahab? She lied and deceived and was handsomely rewarded for specifically that service.

studebaker hoch:There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

AverageAmericanGuy:studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.

Keizer_Ghidorah:AverageAmericanGuy: studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.

AverageAmericanGuy:Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.

Keizer_Ghidorah:AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.

When I make mashed potatoes, I substitute half of the spuds with cooked cauliflower or turnips.

Cook diced bacon until crisp. Remove from pan, then saute the chopped onion, crushed garlic, plus halved & trimmed brussel sprouts until the sprouts start browning on the edges. Mix the bacon back in and enjoy!

AverageAmericanGuy:Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.

I have evidence my dad exists. Nothing for God. And I'll take my real and loving father over the imaginary and abusive God any day.

It's up to you. Free will and all that.

Just don't come blaming me when you're burning in hell for all eternity.

If God was truly as benevolent and loving as Christians say he is, he wouldn't use the threat of unforgiven, eternal, and indescribable punishment in order to frighten people into worshiping him. In every other story ever written, that's the modus operandi of the villain. I don't feel like paying alms to a villain.

The idea of Satan and Hell originated from the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, when they were desperate to convert people. Once again taking elements from other cultures and religions, they crafted a boogieman that torments us and a location to frighten us in order to make people flock to them to be saved from the scary man and his scary home.

So, you'll forgive me for not buying into the delusion that humans are born with the stain of sin because of what the first two humans did, that the only way to be "saved" is to kowtow to a made-up being, and that if I don't said being will toss me into a scary hole in the ground where a goat-man pokes me with a pitchfork for eternity.

"Bearing false witness" means, specifically, "perjury". There's no specific biblical prohibition against deception, and, in fact, it is specifically condoned on more than one occasion. This is not meant to invalidate your entire post, just to clarify what "bearing false witness" actually means.

OK. Since they are so keen on using Leviticus to talk about the abomination that is gay marriage, how about we try these:

Leviticus 6:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour...or hath deceived his neighbour...and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty,"

I'm guessing you don't know what "swearing falsely" means any more than "bearing false witness", but they're the same thing. See, it says if you deceive your neighbor and lie about it in court, you're in trouble. It doesn't actually say "if you ever lie to your neighbor at all". Now, in your second verse, who's being talked about in the "one to another" part? Because that's important to know in order to understand that, again, this is not a general prohibition on lying/deception. Now, do you know the story of Rahab? She lied and deceived and was handsomely rewarded for specifically that service.

What? You mean these passages have to be taken in context? That just can't be! I mean, I see peaceful, kind people quoting Psalms 109:8, expressing their desire for Obama to leave office, and they do it without the context on vengeance (and violence) that verses 1-7 and 9-31 provide.

cmunic8r99:What? You mean these passages have to be taken in context? That just can't be! I mean, I see peaceful, kind people quoting Psalms 109:8, expressing their desire for Obama to leave office, and they do it without the context on vengeance (and violence) that verses 1-7 and 9-31 provide.

Yeah, I also find it strange that I am able to learn (not guess, but research and learn) the context, but most people who actually belong to the religions based off the Hebrew scriptures can't. It's weird. Maybe it's because I don't have the expectations they have, so I can actually accept uncomfortable passages with no qualms.

Caught a minute of talk radio, think it was Lars Larson. He had a(n elderly, sounded that way anyways) female speaker on and they were talking about this. Lars started talking about how "society has the obligation to defend something we've held sacred for thousands of years" and then "if gays say they're doing this out of love, what about the fathers who want to marry their daughters out of love, to pass down property and goods without worrying about tax, and say a brother loves his sister so much he wants to give her his stuff without tax", and that's when I turned off the radio.

Seriously, is this the best the anti-side has got? You can't just accept the fact that two consenting adults who love each other want to have the same rights and freedoms as other consenting adults who love each other? You have to twist and distort your brains to the breaking point and beyond just to come up with reasons to be hateful, spiteful, evil sons of biatches? Is it that important to you to deny your fellow Americans and humans something you take for granted? If it is, fark you. Fark you and the horse you rode in on. If there is a God and a hell, I hope he has a special place in it for evil little toads like you.